niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment? A: I would therefore classify them as Symbiote  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about them?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment? A: I would therefore classify them as Symbiote  Q: What else can you tell me about them? A: They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any other facts that I might find interesting either way?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs. The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans. They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns. This coupled with our own natural requirement for congnative and social development; the 'Tubbies' use their individual personalities and applicable talents to display moral and ethical guidance, through the performance of simplistic song, dance and play scenarios... I would therefore classify them as Symbiote.  <sep>  Q: Are the teletubbies cyborgs? A: I would suggest that the Teletubbies are not cyborgs  Q: Why would you come to this conclusion when they have implanted televisions? A: The peculiar antenna and visual display appendages are naturally occurring adaptations which allow them to exist in symbiotic harmony with humans  Q: Are they the result of some kind of experiment? A: I would therefore classify them as Symbiote  Q: What else can you tell me about them? A: They display a distinct and uncontrollable physiological requirement for the reception of (mostly) childrens basic and crucially, innocent thought patterns  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So are they children or adults?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons. It is, of course, one of the stormtroopers blown away who utters the Wilhelm scream. It is a bit faint and overshadowed by the general noise (and soundtrack?) and not directly in your face, which might be why you missed it. But you can definitely hear it in that scene.  <sep>  Q: Was the famous “Wilhelm Scream” used in “The Force Awakens?”
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons. It is, of course, one of the stormtroopers blown away who utters the Wilhelm scream. It is a bit faint and overshadowed by the general noise (and soundtrack?) and not directly in your face, which might be why you missed it. But you can definitely hear it in that scene.  <sep>  Q: Was the famous “Wilhelm Scream” used in “The Force Awakens?” A: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you give me any other insights into the force awakens?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons. It is, of course, one of the stormtroopers blown away who utters the Wilhelm scream. It is a bit faint and overshadowed by the general noise (and soundtrack?) and not directly in your face, which might be why you missed it. But you can definitely hear it in that scene.  <sep>  Q: Was the famous “Wilhelm Scream” used in “The Force Awakens?” A: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you explain why this scream is used?###Many films use this scream, can you explain why it is used so heavily in the industry?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons. It is, of course, one of the stormtroopers blown away who utters the Wilhelm scream. It is a bit faint and overshadowed by the general noise (and soundtrack?) and not directly in your face, which might be why you missed it. But you can definitely hear it in that scene.  <sep>  Q: Was the famous “Wilhelm Scream” used in “The Force Awakens?” A: It did occur in the movie, very near the beginning, when Poe and Finn escape in a TIE fighter and fend off some stormtroopers with the TIE fighter's weapons  Q: Can you give me any other insights into the force awakens? A: one of the stormtroopers blown away who utters the Wilhelm scream  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens after the storm trooper is blown away?
Output: No
CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie? A: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie? A: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him  Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother? A: Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, when I watched I noticed a man that looked like Christian Bale sitting next to Borden, am I mistaken?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie? A: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him  Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother? A: Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself  Q: Okay, when I watched I noticed a man that looked like Christian Bale sitting next to Borden, am I mistaken? A: I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, so there isn't a secret revealed throughout the entire movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him. Beyond throwing CGI money away on such an inconsequential shot, if you look at the other man's features you'll notice much different bone and cartilage structures around the eye sockets, more-centered zygomatic bones (cheekbones), and a more acute angle where the nasal bones indent and leave the brow. Plus, this man looks nothing like The Professor / Bernard Fallon (Borden's alter-ego). I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance. Do I have definitive proof? No, I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men. Another thing to consider is that the twins kept public contact at a minimum. They did not seem to "hang out" together. This is explained by Borden's reveal of the so-called "frail" old Chinese magician whose act was basically performed off-stage; ie: the man was fit enough to work heavy bowls of water but presented himself as a feeble old man who required canes and / or assistance to go to and from the theater. That was the real act. Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself.  <sep>  Q: Is Borden's secret revealed as soon as the 11th minute of the movie? A: This has been unanswered for too long, so I'm just going to say it. NO. That is not him  Q: So, Borden doesn't have a twin brother? A: Borden would not likely risk exposure by sitting next to himself  Q: Okay, when I watched I noticed a man that looked like Christian Bale sitting next to Borden, am I mistaken? A: I see no reason to assume this is anything other than someone reading too much into a slight resemblance  Q: Okay, so there isn't a secret revealed throughout the entire movie? A: I do not. Also, I have difficulty in seeing any kind of compelling resemblance between the two men  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I see a resemblance and really thought I was onto something, but you disagree?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  Q: What else can you tell me about this? A: If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why wouldn't they go along with it?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  Q: What else can you tell me about this? A: If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to  Q: Why wouldn't they go along with it? A: He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge  Q: Ahh. so he lied to them to get them on his side? A: the ultimate way to get credibility  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you have any more information for me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: But, does anything happen when he reveals this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers. He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge, even faking that he was already dead, the ultimate way to get credibility. If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to. (For example, David suggests Weyland wanted Elizabeth Shaw there as a good-luck charm). Remember the scene where Vickers tells the two scientists that they are not to make contact with the engineers? This is the first hint that Weyland (in the hologram) was lying. Vickers knew Weyland was alive, and knew his true goal, and did not want the scientists to interfere with that goal.  <sep>  Q: Why does Weyland hide that he was on the ship? A: I got the impression Weyland did not want the scientists (especially the two head scientists) to realize his selfish reason for wanting to contact the engineers  Q: What else can you tell me about this? A: If he had been honest and said "I want the engineers to help me live forever" the scientists might not have gone along as he wanted them to  Q: Why wouldn't they go along with it? A: He kept them under the impression that he was funding the mission so that mankind could have the knowledge  Q: Ahh. so he lied to them to get them on his side? A: the ultimate way to get credibility  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long was the journey for?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators? A: Aliens don't have eyes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Aliens don't have eyes?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators? A: Aliens don't have eyes  Q: Aliens don't have eyes? A: They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wow, I was reading that the can see their predators even when cloaked, but that isn't true?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators? A: Aliens don't have eyes  Q: Aliens don't have eyes? A: They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise  Q: Wow, I was reading that the can see their predators even when cloaked, but that isn't true? A: a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I am just going by what I see on IMDb, can you share anything else you know about aliens?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators? A: Aliens don't have eyes  Q: Aliens don't have eyes? A: They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise  Q: Wow, I was reading that the can see their predators even when cloaked, but that isn't true? A: a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure  Q: I am just going by what I see on IMDb, can you share anything else you know about aliens? A: Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wow, and is it true they can kill with their claws?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Aliens don't have eyes. They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise. How they manage this with such accuracy isn't known, but a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure. Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark, and Aliens also adapt the senses of the host who gave birth to them. So if they are grown in a Predator they will take on Predator traits. Aliens are a scary bunch! :)  <sep>  Q: Can Aliens see cloaked predators? A: Aliens don't have eyes  Q: Aliens don't have eyes? A: They sense their prey through changes in air pressure and noise  Q: Wow, I was reading that the can see their predators even when cloaked, but that isn't true? A: a Predator's cloak bends light so that they appear camouflaged by their surroundings. When a Predator moves when cloaked they still emit changes in air pressure  Q: I am just going by what I see on IMDb, can you share anything else you know about aliens? A: Aliens are also effective hunters underwater and can sense their prey's electromagnetic field much like a shark  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do any of the AVP movies reference aliens being able to see predators when cloaked?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How has the movie altered the plot?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does the film have so much humour?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies  Q: Why does the film have so much humour? A: The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways. The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible (though this is a common trade-off in movies). The plot is simpler with fewer characters. The overall tone is not too far from the books, but the opportunity for cinematic additions has been taken. The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing). Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book. I recall some inventive insults in the bar scene, for example, which are the sort of things he does say in the books as a result of his unshakeable confidence in dealing with people he has to fight. He really doesn't mind getting physical as he know he will win, so insulting his adversaries and goading them is a typical strategy. Overall the movie captures the spirit of the books reasonably well, but the slapstick scene sticks out as an anomaly.  <sep>  Q: Are the comedic elements in the film Jack Reacher evident in the novels on which it was based? A: The movie has altered the plot of One Shot in many significant ways  Q: How has the movie altered the plot? A: The setting, for example, is a large city not a medium sized town, which makes it more cinematic but less coherent or credible  Q: Why was this done if it makes the movie less credible? A: this is a common trade-off in movies  Q: Why does the film have so much humour? A: The slapstick scene is pure cinema invention (I'm not even sure you can do slapstick like that in prose writing  Q: Why do films feel like they need to add humorous elements that are not true to the book? A: Some of the humorous dialogue, though, is true to Reacher's character in the book  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did the director choose to change anything else about the books?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library? A: It is not explained, but we can theorize  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is your theory?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library? A: It is not explained, but we can theorize  Q: What is your theory? A: Internet still wasn't a thing back then  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: John Doe knew a lot about the Seven Deadly Sins already, didn't he?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library? A: It is not explained, but we can theorize  Q: What is your theory? A: Internet still wasn't a thing back then  Q: John Doe knew a lot about the Seven Deadly Sins already, didn't he? A: IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It is not explained, but we can theorize. We don't know when he rented those books. He might have done so before buying his own (to ensure he indeed should buy them), or because the books weren't easy (or cheap) to purchase. Also remember that instead of renting books on a subject he is well versed in, he probably became well versed on the subject thanks to renting those books. Finally, despite those books in his apartment, IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins (John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library. The books in his house might have been educational on a ton of other subjects or philosophies. Also keep in mind, the Internet still wasn't a thing back then. And books such as the ones mentioned (on bondage, homicide, or by Italian Dominican friars) might have not been easily found in your regular old book store. Finally, you can also claim that he rented them to make the plot move along, as this was their main lead.  <sep>  Q: Why did John Doe need to check out books at a public library? A: It is not explained, but we can theorize  Q: What is your theory? A: Internet still wasn't a thing back then  Q: John Doe knew a lot about the Seven Deadly Sins already, didn't he? A: IIRC we are never told what those books are about. They might have had nothing to do with the seven deadly sins  Q: What else can you tell me about the movie? A: John Doe wanted to avoid having incriminating evidence on his home, perhaps?), and thus all of his knowledge came from renting the books in the library  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was Doe's motivation for his acts?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The Transformers aren't very well explored in the Michael Bay movies, so we'll have to judge according to the other (better explored) continuities. While the process of switching alternate modes in the movie seemed effortless, it might not have been. In other continuities the switch is either energy consuming or a major physical operation. So just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly. Also, the alt-mode seems to be a very personal aspect for each Transformer, which serve a similar function as clothes do to humans. They are a reflection of the owner, and once it is chosen it tends to stay the same. Transformers have been known to keep the same alt mode for thousands of years, which isn't really that long when you remember that their life span can stretch into the millions of years.  <sep>  Q: Why do the Transformers always transform into the same cars? A: just changing to another vehicle might be a very expensive step that one does not take lightly  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is changing into another vehicle so difficult?
Output: Yes